KESHAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sessions Trial No. 609 of 1992, the appellant/accused keshao was tried on a charge that he on or about 10th May, 1992 at about 9. 00p. m. at Shaniwarpeth, Kondhali, committed murder by intentionally and knowingly causing the death of his brother Shriram s/o Santoshrao Tingle by means of 'bichwa' and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of ipc. The learned Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 29th June, 1995 found appellant/accused Keshoao guilty of having committed offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer further r. I. for one month, which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that the appellant/accused, deceased shriram and Harihar (PW11) are real brothers. Out of them, appellant/accused keshao is the eldest and PW 11 Harihar is the youngest. That appellant/accused keshao insisted for partition during the life time of their parents and on the day of incident i. e. 10-5-1992 the appellant/ accused Keshao quarrelled with his parents in the Chappari of Harihar on account of partition of joint family property and, therefore, deceased Shriram intervened and reprimanded the appellant/ accused Keshao as to why he was always quarrelling for partition of property. On this, the appellant/accused Keshao supposed to have called upon the deceased shriram that their parents are not prepared to partition and he should do it. After some time appellant/accused Keshao went to his shop and deceased Shriram returned to his house. While deceased shriram along with his wife PW 10 gitabai were sitting in the Chappari of harihar, appellant/accused Keshao is alleged to have assaulted deceased shriram with a knife on his left thigh. This was witnessed by PW 10 Sau geetabi, wife of deceased Shriram and pw7 Ku. Ranjana, daughter of deceased shriram. On being assaulted, deceased shriram shouted "melo Re Bappa" which attracted the attention of their parents as well as neighbours. The son of the deceased namely Sanjay immediately rushed and tried to catch hold of appellant/accused Keshoa but the appellant/ accused escaped, giving a jerk to him and ran away. The deceased Shriram having suffered bleeding injuries on his groin, collapsed on ground. PW 10 Gitabai, wife of deceased Shriram, bandaged the injury and injured Shriram was taken to hospital. A report in the matter came to be lodged by Harihar (PW 11), the youngest brother of deceased Shriram. P. S. I. Ramnath Awasthi (PW 13) also received telephone from Kondhali Primary Health center that there was a matter of stabbing and victim was expired. Therefore, he visited the hospital along with complainant Harihar. After confirming that shriram has died and lying in the hospital, P. S. I. Ramnath Awasthi took down the oral report of Harihar and treated it as F. I. R. (Exh. 46 ). On the basis of the f. I. R. he registered a crime No. 76/02 under Section 302 of IPC against appellant/ accused Keshao. On 11. 5. 1992 PSI awasthi prepared a inquest panchanama (Exh. 17) in the presence of panchas and seized the articles from the person of the deceased under the seizure panchanama (Exh 36 ). The dead body of Shriram was referred to Medical College, Nagpur for post-mortem. He also prepared spot panchanama (Exh. 27) of the place where the incident had occurred and collected sample of blood stained earth and other things from the spot. He also seized blood stained saree of the wife of deceased shriram and other clothes, which were used for the bandage of the wounds under panchanama (Exh. 17 ). In the course of investigation the statements of witnesses came to be recorded. On 11. 5. 1992 at about 1. 00 p. m. the appellant/accused was arrested and at his instance a knife came to be discovered, which was seized under the panchanama (Exh. 30 ). There were blood stains on the blade of the knife. The appellant/accused was also referred for medical examination and for collecting his blood sample. All the articles seized, during the course of investigation, were sent to Forensic Science laboratory. The plan of the spot came to be prepared. It appears that further investigation in the matter was handed over to PSI Meshram, who, after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet in the court, who committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) IN reply to the charge, appellant/accused Keshao pleaded not guilty. It was his case that he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of wife of the deceased and one Dharme and took plea of alibi that on the day of incident at the relevant time, he was working in his shop and he came to know about the incident of his deceased brother through Ranjana, daughter of deceased. In support of his defence, he has also examined DW 1 Tulshiram Bhadduji bhole, who claimed that the appellant/ accused was in his tailoring shop stitching his clothes from 5. 00 p. m. to 10. 00 p. m.